Objective: Pembrolizumab and dostarlimab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that target programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1). Combination anti-PD-1 regimens have been shown to exhibit favorable survival benefits when treating advanced endometrial cancer (EC). Which treatment was preferable will need to be confirmed by a cost-effectiveness comparison between them. Methods: Based on patient and clinical parameters from RUBY and NRG-GY018 phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy (DC), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (PC), and chemotherapy alone (C) treatment for patients with mismatch repair-proficient microsatellite-stable (pMMR-MSS) and mismatch repair-deficient microsatellite instability-high (dMMR-MSI-H) advanced EC from the American payers’ perspective. The main results include total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay. Results: In the pMMR-MSS population, DC, PC, and C produced costs (QALYs) of $99,205 (3.02), $322,530 (3.25), and $421,923 (4.40), resulting in corresponding ICERs of $974,177/ QALY (PC vs. C), $234,527/QALY (DC vs. C), $86,671/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively; In the dMMR-MSI-H population, DC, PC, and C obtained costs (QALYs) of $120,177 (5.73), $691,399 (8.43), and $708,787 (11.26), yielding ICERs of $266,423/QALY (PC vs. C), $135,165/QALY (DC vs. C), $7,866/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively. Conclusion In the US, DC was a more cost-effective treatment than PC for patients with advanced EC irrespective of MMR status. However, compared to C, DC was associated with more cost-effectiveness in the dMMR-MSI-H population.

Objective: Pembrolizumab and dostarlimab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that target programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1). Combination anti-PD-1 regimens have been shown to exhibit favorable survival benefits when treating advanced endometrial cancer (EC). Which treatment was preferable will need to be confirmed by a cost-effectiveness comparison between them. Methods: Based on patient and clinical parameters from RUBY and NRG-GY018 phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy (DC), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (PC), and chemotherapy alone (C) treatment for patients with mismatch repair-proficient microsatellite-stable (pMMR-MSS) and mismatch repair-deficient microsatellite instability-high (dMMR-MSI-H) advanced EC from the American payers’ perspective. The main results include total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay. Results: In the pMMR-MSS population, DC, PC, and C produced costs (QALYs) of $99,205 (3.02), $322,530 (3.25), and $421,923 (4.40), resulting in corresponding ICERs of $974,177/ QALY (PC vs. C), $234,527/QALY (DC vs. C), $86,671/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively; In the dMMR-MSI-H population, DC, PC, and C obtained costs (QALYs) of $120,177 (5.73), $691,399 (8.43), and $708,787 (11.26), yielding ICERs of $266,423/QALY (PC vs. C), $135,165/QALY (DC vs. C), $7,866/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively. Conclusion In the US, DC was a more cost-effective treatment than PC for patients with advanced EC irrespective of MMR status. However, compared to C, DC was associated with more cost-effectiveness in the dMMR-MSI-H population.

Objective: Pembrolizumab and dostarlimab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that target programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1). Combination anti-PD-1 regimens have been shown to exhibit favorable survival benefits when treating advanced endometrial cancer (EC). Which treatment was preferable will need to be confirmed by a cost-effectiveness comparison between them. Methods: Based on patient and clinical parameters from RUBY and NRG-GY018 phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy (DC), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (PC), and chemotherapy alone (C) treatment for patients with mismatch repair-proficient microsatellite-stable (pMMR-MSS) and mismatch repair-deficient microsatellite instability-high (dMMR-MSI-H) advanced EC from the American payers’ perspective. The main results include total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay. Results: In the pMMR-MSS population, DC, PC, and C produced costs (QALYs) of $99,205 (3.02), $322,530 (3.25), and $421,923 (4.40), resulting in corresponding ICERs of $974,177/ QALY (PC vs. C), $234,527/QALY (DC vs. C), $86,671/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively; In the dMMR-MSI-H population, DC, PC, and C obtained costs (QALYs) of $120,177 (5.73), $691,399 (8.43), and $708,787 (11.26), yielding ICERs of $266,423/QALY (PC vs. C), $135,165/QALY (DC vs. C), $7,866/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively. Conclusion In the US, DC was a more cost-effective treatment than PC for patients with advanced EC irrespective of MMR status. However, compared to C, DC was associated with more cost-effectiveness in the dMMR-MSI-H population.

Objective: The PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644) reported final survival benefit associated with olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) based on molecular status. Our aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab for overall patients, patients with a breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA) mutation, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or HRD without BRCA mutations AOC from the context of the American healthcare system. Methods: Analysis of health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in various molecular status-based AOC patient at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay was performed using a state-transitioned Markov model with a 20-year time horizon. Meanwhile, sensitivity analyses assessments were also used to gauge the model’s stability. Results: The ICERs of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone were $487,428 ($374,758), $249,579 ($191,649), $258,859 ($198,739), and $270,736 ($206,640) per QALY (LY) in the overall patients, patients with BRCA mutations, patients with HRD, and patients with HRD without BRCA mutations AOC, respectively, which indicated that The ICERs was higher than $150,000/QALY in the US. Progression-free survival (PFS) value and olaparib cost emerged as the primary influencing factors of these findings in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusion At current cost levels, olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment is not a cost-effective treatment for patients with AOC regardless of their molecular status in the US. However, this maintenance treatment may be more favorable health advantages for patients with BRAC mutations AOC.

Objective: Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV), a new antibody-drug conjugate, versus the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (IC) was the first treatment to demonstrate benefits for progression-free and overall survival in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC) with high folate receptor-alpha (high-FRα) expression. Efficacy, safety, and economic effectiveness make MIRV the new standard of care for these patients. Methods: Based on patients and clinical parameters from MIRASOL (GOG 3045/ENGOTov55) phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost and efficacy of MIRV and IC for PROC with high-FRα expression, considering the bevacizumab-pretreated situation from the American healthcare system. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net health benefits were the main outcome indicators and compared with willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: Compared with the IC, MIRV was associated with incremental costs of $538,251, $575,674, and $188,248 with the corresponding QALYs (LYs) increased by 0.90 (1.55), 1.09 (1.88), and 0.53 (0.79), leading to ICERs of $596,189/QALY ($347,995/LY), $530,061/QALY ($306,894/LY), and $1,011,310/QALY ($680,025/LY) in the overall, bevacizumab-naïve, and bevacizumab-pretreated patients, respectively. When MIRV is reduced by more than 75%, it may be a cost-effective treatment. Conclusion At the current price, MIRV for PROC with high-FRα expression is not the cost-effective strategy in the US. However, its treatment has higher health benefits in bevacizumab-naïve patients, which is likely to be an alternative.

Objective: The PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644) reported final survival benefit associated with olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) based on molecular status. Our aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab for overall patients, patients with a breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA) mutation, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or HRD without BRCA mutations AOC from the context of the American healthcare system. Methods: Analysis of health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in various molecular status-based AOC patient at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay was performed using a state-transitioned Markov model with a 20-year time horizon. Meanwhile, sensitivity analyses assessments were also used to gauge the model’s stability. Results: The ICERs of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone were $487,428 ($374,758), $249,579 ($191,649), $258,859 ($198,739), and $270,736 ($206,640) per QALY (LY) in the overall patients, patients with BRCA mutations, patients with HRD, and patients with HRD without BRCA mutations AOC, respectively, which indicated that The ICERs was higher than $150,000/QALY in the US. Progression-free survival (PFS) value and olaparib cost emerged as the primary influencing factors of these findings in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusion At current cost levels, olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment is not a cost-effective treatment for patients with AOC regardless of their molecular status in the US. However, this maintenance treatment may be more favorable health advantages for patients with BRAC mutations AOC.

Objective: Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV), a new antibody-drug conjugate, versus the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (IC) was the first treatment to demonstrate benefits for progression-free and overall survival in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC) with high folate receptor-alpha (high-FRα) expression. Efficacy, safety, and economic effectiveness make MIRV the new standard of care for these patients. Methods: Based on patients and clinical parameters from MIRASOL (GOG 3045/ENGOTov55) phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost and efficacy of MIRV and IC for PROC with high-FRα expression, considering the bevacizumab-pretreated situation from the American healthcare system. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net health benefits were the main outcome indicators and compared with willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: Compared with the IC, MIRV was associated with incremental costs of $538,251, $575,674, and $188,248 with the corresponding QALYs (LYs) increased by 0.90 (1.55), 1.09 (1.88), and 0.53 (0.79), leading to ICERs of $596,189/QALY ($347,995/LY), $530,061/QALY ($306,894/LY), and $1,011,310/QALY ($680,025/LY) in the overall, bevacizumab-naïve, and bevacizumab-pretreated patients, respectively. When MIRV is reduced by more than 75%, it may be a cost-effective treatment. Conclusion At the current price, MIRV for PROC with high-FRα expression is not the cost-effective strategy in the US. However, its treatment has higher health benefits in bevacizumab-naïve patients, which is likely to be an alternative.

Objective: The PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644) reported final survival benefit associated with olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) based on molecular status. Our aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab for overall patients, patients with a breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA) mutation, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or HRD without BRCA mutations AOC from the context of the American healthcare system. Methods: Analysis of health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in various molecular status-based AOC patient at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay was performed using a state-transitioned Markov model with a 20-year time horizon. Meanwhile, sensitivity analyses assessments were also used to gauge the model’s stability. Results: The ICERs of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone were $487,428 ($374,758), $249,579 ($191,649), $258,859 ($198,739), and $270,736 ($206,640) per QALY (LY) in the overall patients, patients with BRCA mutations, patients with HRD, and patients with HRD without BRCA mutations AOC, respectively, which indicated that The ICERs was higher than $150,000/QALY in the US. Progression-free survival (PFS) value and olaparib cost emerged as the primary influencing factors of these findings in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusion At current cost levels, olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment is not a cost-effective treatment for patients with AOC regardless of their molecular status in the US. However, this maintenance treatment may be more favorable health advantages for patients with BRAC mutations AOC.

Objective: Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV), a new antibody-drug conjugate, versus the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (IC) was the first treatment to demonstrate benefits for progression-free and overall survival in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC) with high folate receptor-alpha (high-FRα) expression. Efficacy, safety, and economic effectiveness make MIRV the new standard of care for these patients. Methods: Based on patients and clinical parameters from MIRASOL (GOG 3045/ENGOTov55) phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost and efficacy of MIRV and IC for PROC with high-FRα expression, considering the bevacizumab-pretreated situation from the American healthcare system. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net health benefits were the main outcome indicators and compared with willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: Compared with the IC, MIRV was associated with incremental costs of $538,251, $575,674, and $188,248 with the corresponding QALYs (LYs) increased by 0.90 (1.55), 1.09 (1.88), and 0.53 (0.79), leading to ICERs of $596,189/QALY ($347,995/LY), $530,061/QALY ($306,894/LY), and $1,011,310/QALY ($680,025/LY) in the overall, bevacizumab-naïve, and bevacizumab-pretreated patients, respectively. When MIRV is reduced by more than 75%, it may be a cost-effective treatment. Conclusion At the current price, MIRV for PROC with high-FRα expression is not the cost-effective strategy in the US. However, its treatment has higher health benefits in bevacizumab-naïve patients, which is likely to be an alternative.

Atherosclerosis (AS) is a chronic and progressive arterial disease. It is an important cause of the occurrence and development of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. With the development of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), TCM has many advantages in the therapy of AS, with less adverse reactions. Studies have shown that TCM can resist AS, and the mechanism mainly belongs to regulating lipid metabolism, anti-lipid peroxidation, anti-inflammation, anticoagulation, and protecting the structure and function of vascular endothelial cells. The mechanism of TCM for AS is warranted to be studied systematically, and the chemical components need to be further clarified.